Brainwash (2010–…): Season 1, Episode 2 - Foreldreeffekten - full transcript
Hi... could I ask you a few questions? It's serious business.
It's about science.
Can I ask you a few questions?
I want to hear the opinion of the people.
Are you kidding me?
No.
What determines our intelligence?
How big a part does the environment play in our development?
The genetic inheritance from our parents...
We have to set limits...
IQ, Intelligence Quotient.
Equal opportunities in school.
Reform 97 is to be implemented.
That was an artificial smile.
How come different people have different personalities?
Are you awake, girls? Departure in 45 minutes.
Are you coming, dad?
I've always liked the sight of my two girls going to school.
And like every parent, I would like them to do well in school.
But whe are some kids doing better in school than others?
My name is Harald Eia. Did anyone know that?
You're dying with laughter.
Can I ask a rude question? Who's the best pupil in the class?
Is it you?
Did they point at you? Are you the best in this class?
Yes!
Does your parents have lots of education?
Yes, I would say that. One of them is an economist.
The other is a teacher, but she has studied for years in addition.
My mom is clever. I bet she did well in school.
But she didn't do well in maths. And my dad didn't do well in school.
So I haven't inherited the best genes for school work.
This I experience now.
Does this make you mad at them.
No.
Perhaps it's rude to ask people personal questions like that.
But, statistics show that the school performance of these youngsters-
- are closely linked to how their parents performed.
In the Government report "No-one was left behind", it's stated.
"Graduates from junior school with parents with higher education"-
-"get on average one grade better in every course"-
-"than students with parents that have a junior high school education."
It's called grade inheritance.
It's regarded as a major failure of the Norwegian school system.
The school should ""counteract social inequality".
Everyone should have the chance to do well, regardless of origin.
Who do we have a school where family background-
-plays such a part in a student's performance?
That's what we're going to find out.
One that can help me with this is former Minister of Education-
-Gudmund Hernes.
Official reports... not many read these.
Today, he's a professor in sociology.
And one of the architects behind school reforms to neutralize inequality.
Hernes was my old professor. I had maybe two lectures with him.
There you are! So nice.
It's like you live here when you open thee door yourself.
Hernes says that until WW2, Norway's class structures were rigid.
Where you ended up in society was determined by where you came from.
It was a direct relation.
If you grew up on a farm you ended up on a farm.
If your father was in the bureaucrasy you could end up there too.
You inherited the positions your parents had.
If there was no money, it didn't matter if you were a good student
For instance, my mother diid well in school.
She had to quit, because her paretns coulnd't afford school.
It was the same with my mom too. She was born in 1925.
Do you want coffee?
I want coffee.
You and dad where the same age.
And dad got the opportunity to take a higher education.
He did well in school but you did too.
No... I was like everyone else.
But you liked going to school?
Yes. I would say that.
But you didn't take higher education?
No. My brother was able to go to lower secondaty school.
(Liv Meldal)
But we couldn't afford it. School cost money.
If you had been able to take a loan, you would have continued in school?
Absolutely! I envied those in my class that could afford it.
This was at Spillum.
They rode their bikes in the morning.
I was with my grandmother and had to help her in the cowshed.
And I saw my friends on their bikes, on the way to school.
I was envious then.
Before the war, people with dissimilar family background-
-got dissimilar education.
But after the war, we saw that we had lots of unused human potential.
We understood that people had abilities,-
-but that for a lot of people these abilities were being repressed.
Therefore not only the working places had to change-
-but alse the school system.
A system was built that gave everyone the same opportunity to education.
You are an example of a good student from a fairly simple background.
And you used the new system to get ahead.
Yes. I received both a stipend and acceptance to a university.
And a student loan. And I had no problems continuing in my studies.
The good student, Hernes, received his professorship only 30 years old.
My dad graduated in chemistry.
And therefore became the first in the Eia family with a higher education.
But the new system didn't function quite as planned.
In 1976 Hernes publishes a report that shows-
-children from higher social segments still had the most education.
It was a paradox. A system was created to create equality.
Still, the differences we originally had-
-were reproduced in the new system.
Why is it that way
The 10th graders said it was because you inherit your parents' genes.
You don't think it's because the inequality is reproduced-
-because people inherit the genes that dictate school performance?
And that's why they do as well as their parents.
I think it's a component of biology that determines what we can become.
But I think the importance of this is strongly overvaluyed.
To find out more, I visis sociology professor Willy Pedersen.
He's an expert on youth and family relations.
Hi! Are you that tall?
Yes. But you are tall too.
Thanks, but how tall are you?
1,91 meter.
I think I'm probably sinking a bit.
Here's your home office.
This is where I think and write.
Do you have many kids?
Two.
Parents with higher education get children with high education
The children of parents with less education, take less too.
Where is this from? Why is it that way?
The simplest explanation is that they copy what's around them.
(Willy Pedersen - Sociologist)
Children take in all kinds of sources...
Both what they are told and if they are read to...
If you read "Peer Gynt" for your children, they will listen.
They notice what's said at the dinner table. Those "given" things.
We sociologists are concerned with those things that are not discussed.
Things that just are the way they are.
Pedersen says children that see parents read, copy them.
And then they do well in school too.
This fits with my upbringing. My dad read a lot.
He always consulted the encyclopedia.
Dad was a master at looking things up in the encyclopedia.
Do you think the did it too much?
When we had guests, and there was a subject that was being discussed,-
-your sister would say: "Now dad's going to get out the encyclopedia."
It was a bit much.
Yes. People wanted to discuss.
And not get the true answer.
It's strange. It was called "Conversational Encyclopedia."
But it put a stop to every conversation.
Yes.
Nothing more to talk about.
When we wondered about something dad looked in the encyclopedia.
I do the same. That type of culture explains some of the differences?
Obviously. It's not only the entrance into the system that matters.
But what you bring with you.
So even if the entrance is the same, the amount of baggage you the students bring to the school is unequal.
There is lots of talent that never go to the university-
-from social segments with lower education. No doubt.
To utilize people's talent one had to early counter-
-the differences created at home.
So in 1997, Hernes supported the new rule of schooling from the age of 6.
The first encounter with the school and the teacher.
Many of the 6-year-olds had looked forward to this day.
but not everyone wanted to go to school.
But despite the fact that dissimilar family background-
-get dissimilar education.
The home environment explains why children take after their parents.
A child copy her mother and father. Also bad habits.
So you never smoked?
Yes.
i started smoking when I was 17/18 that was common in my circles.
Everyone around my dad did.
Studies show that there is a 50 % higher risk for a child that grew up with parents who smoke-
-will also start to smoke.
It's a direct effect. An imitation effect.
So, given that everything else is equal it seems that-
-if the parents smoke, they influence the children to take the same chooses.
The children imitate the parents?
Yes, the smoking habits.
This is important knowledge for the policy makers.
Former Minister of Children Affairs.
One copies one's parents. Those are the strongest role models.
Parents are role models?
Ask young girls about it.
it's not Paris Hilton or Britney Spears. It's mom.
Parents are role models. They have great responsibility.
In a national campaign parents are reminded that:
"If alcohol is a central part of hygge, enjoyment and social life for parents,"-
-"there is a great risk for that the child will copy there standpoints and habits."
It will look like me, a total abstainer, drinks beer...
Hans Olav Tungesvik is a psychiatrist.
He has written the book: "Traces of your own Parents as keys to self insight"
He believes a great responsibility rests with the parents.
Parents are mirrors to their children.
This is why the little things in everyday life are important in determining-
-if it will become a good life later on.
Many of the psychological problems grown-ups have,-
-can they be understood as a product of the experiences and lessons learned-
-they had with their parents?
Obviously.
There are many examples of that.
Do you see children as pieces of clay?
And then they slowly harden?
Were good image. That's it.
It's formed gradually. Little by little.
It's that way, for better or worse.
Those that want their children to have a good life,-
-they have to be very conscious of this.
Because the children are influenced by the home environment, siblings have similar interests and skills.
But there are examples of siblings from the same home-
-who aren't very similar.
Hello! Can I talk to you?
What is your name? Alexander.
And you?
Oscar.
How old are you Oscar?
Nine.
And you are?
Seven.
Okay. Let's see yor front teeth.
Perfect front teeth! There are lots of advantages with teeth like that.
Are they similar or dissimilar as types?
Very dissimilar.
In what way?
Alexander is extrovert. Likes to talk. Oscar is more quiet.
Are you quiet?
Most of the time.
Siblings are different, in spite of growing up in the same home.
It could of cause be because they are treated unequal.
But perhaps they are treated unequal because they are unequal.
We have to go back to the unsolvable question:
How much is nature, and how much is nurture?
I remember one person at the university.
He asked that question.
What was the percentages again?
Was that question ridiculed?
Yes.
It shouldn't have been. Don't you think it's interesting?
Yes, but it's not set in percentage.
My guess is fifty-fifty.
I would say at most one third.
One third is genetic not higher?
How much do you think is nature and how much is nurture?
I think it might well be 80 % social life and environment.
80 % is parental influence, 20 % is the parents genes.
Yes, I should think so.
Tungesvik is guessing.
One of the reasons is that it's hard to give an exact answer,-
-is that it's hard to say what in a person that stems from genes,-
-and what is family influence and what is influenced by society.
What's her name?
Miriam Rebecca.
You have been sweating.
You were sweaty and warm.
Is she adopted?
Yes.
Do you think you can mould her personality?
Or do you think it's determined from the genes?
I think it's determined from the genes.
It's is precisely studies on adopted children that can answer the old conundrum.
Then we can see both the effect of genes and the home environment.
I discover that the foremost expert on adoption studies is Robert Plomin.
Who is a professor at King's College in London.
Plomin heads several adoption- and twin-studies.
And I ask him to tell me about the one that has gone on the longest.
Colorado Adoption Project started already in 1975.
For over 30 years Plomin has examined the adopted children,-
-the adoptive parents and the children's biological parents.
And then Plomin compared them with control families.
They were regular families where children grow up with their biological parents.
In the control families, he found that IQ levels of parents and child-
-were fairly similar. Not surprisingly.
But when looking at the IQ of adopted children and their biological parents,-
-he discovered something surprising.
The adopted children's IQ correlated with the IQ of their biological parents-
-even when the child did not grow up with them.
The effect of genes seems to be very strong.
Imagine that! The adoptive parents raise the adopted children as their own.
Read for them, helped them with homework.
But still Plomin found no effect on the IQ of the adopted children.
If the biological parents had low IQ,-
-the smart adoptive parents would not get smart children.
Several studies point to this.
It's the genes, not the environment at home that matters.
Not only how smart you become but also your core personality traits.
Whether you are introvert or extrovert, emphatic or asocial.
It's not the result of the home environment but of the genes.
Before I had children I knew how they should be raised.
After I had one, I certainly knew how to raise them.
But after I got the second one, I knew there are differences in all.
Hernes believed that genes counted for maximum 33 %.
Tungesvik said even less.
I think it might well be 80 % social life and environment.
So genes means a lot. But not everything.
Nurture also affects intelligence and personality traits.
But if the environment has got nothing to do with parental influence, what is it then?
I check out Plomin's tip, and read up on child psychologist Judith Rich Harris.
She has new, and at least for me, revolutionary ideas-
-on the relationship between parents and children, and what shapes us.
And I decide to go to New Jersey to talk to her.
Let's see, she lives in number 54.
Here it is!
I'm fortunate to interview her. Her health is failing-
-and she hardly accepts visitors.
The Americans have an extra door.
I've never understood the point of the extra door.
I don't dare to ask about it.
Harris disagrees with people like Pedersen, Huitfeldt and Tungesvik.
And everyone who says children copy their parents.
When twin- and adoption-studies show little effect of the parents-
-on how we turn out. Harris says it's not really that surprising.
Harris says children are more influenced by children of the same age than parents.
This is still only a theory, but things point to it being right.
Studies have shown that children experience being bullied by other children-
-as much worse than bad home environment.
And when a child learns to talk, they mimic other children, not their parents.
Did you know anyone with braces?
Yes, dad!
Why don't you talk with a northern Norwegian accent?
Good question.
But what about smoking habits?
There's a 50 % bigger change that the child of parents who smoke will become a smoker.
Is that because the child imitates the adults?
Yes, the smoking habits of the parents are imitated.
But if genes mean so much, and parental influence so little,-
-what then with national campaigns against parents drinking alcohol while the child sees it-
-because children copy their parents?
I visit Kristian Tambs, professor in psychology-
-and reaseacher at the National Institute of Health.
A professor, I can see that right away.
Welcome.
Thank you. Harald here.
I had to persuade him to be interviewed.
Because his research speaks against established truths in attitude campaigns.
"If alcohol is a central part of hygge and partying for the parents."
-"it's likely the children will copy these attitudes and habits."
Yes. It's daring to oppose this campaign.
Because there are plenty of reasons not to drink with children present.
We all know that. But...
If asked if there's basis in research-
-in that children copy their parents when it comes to drinking,-
-that's not so certain.
Because most studies that show correlation-
-between the drinking of the parents and the children,-
-show that it's at about the level you could expect-
-from genetic effect only.
So it's not because they copy their parents?
It's because they inherit their parent's genes.
Yes. I believe it's mostly that.
I wasn't the only one being taught this.
The thought of parents affection their children permeates our world.
Is this what you call nice?
Have you gone crazy?
You have leeched of me for 18 years!
And then you offer up a bit of jelly for dinner?
If you've got personal problems, you search for answers in your childhood.
Hello!
Leif Edward Ottensen Kennair is an associate professor of psychology in Trondheim.
He says psychologists have prospered by saying our problems-
-stem from our childhood.
It's one of the myths. That psychology must did and dig-
-in childhood memories. Like a psychological Sherlock Holmes.
Or even worse, an Indiano Jones. Search for causes for the sufferings.
But isn't it so that a dreadful experience from childhood-
-influence your personality the rest of your life?
Not the personality. It doesn't necessarily lead to mental suffering.
But it can lead to bad memories.
Tungesvik says we're born as soft clay. And then we harden.
But the first imprints on the clay lasts forever.
It's a common thing to say. But it doesn't make it true just because many say that.
We haven't been able to establish that the home environment-
-influences the personality at the grown-up stage.
Could it really be true that the home environment doesn't have an effect?
Surely adults can destroy a child?
If the personality and development of my girls-
-is not affected must by me, does it mean that I can, as a dad, relax?
Plomin believes we have to look at nature and nurture in a new light.
That your genes affect your choice in what environment you choose to live in.
This correlates with Helle's talent for gymnastics.
I have never encouraged her to take up gymnastics.
Nonetheless she's still running around form morning to night .
Therefore I bought her a gymnastics mat. That's all I've done.
But we must go back to the starting point: Abilities in schoolwork.
Hernes and Pedersen believed in the home environment.
The pupils focused on genes.
And Plomin agrees with the 10th graders.
So how much can genes mean for the educational results in Norway today?
Kristian Tambs can answer this.
He has studies thousand of twins born before and after the war.
People born before the war-
-were dependent on the family they were from-
-where they ended up in terms of education.
Now genes account for about 60 %.
While the family environment means nearly nothing - 10 %.
For my mother it was her family background-
-that determined her level of education.
But today it's not the difference in family background-
-that leads to difference in education, but the different genes.
The newspapers write that children inherit their paretns' schiool grades.
"Inheritance of grades is a defeat for the Norwegian school system".
It's not necessarily right?
I don't think it is correct.
I think that's the way it has to be-
-in a society with a relatively big equality when it comes to-
-who can acquire an education.
But this opposes everything I've learned!
Yes. But you're a sociologist.
I demand a refund...
Of wasted educational time!
He's a professor, and has headed public reports.
It's sociologists like Hernes and Pedersen that has taught me and Norway that-
-that parents affect children when it comes to smoking, drinking and school.
But on what basis? How can they know this is primarily imitation?
Have the actually researched the importance of genes?
Pedersen doesn't want to see videos with what other researchers have said.
He only wants to answer questions about his own research.
Last time you said it was an imitation effect.
How can you know what is imitation and what is effect of the genes?
We can't say for sure...
In social science we try to introduce explanations.
Where we try to understand the world around us.
But it's hard to say why children are similar to their parents.
If it is because of genes or home environment.
I have researched this thoroughly for 20 years.
Huge models, where we have entered data on all these things.
The importance of friends, of school.
But the factor of the parents is always very strong.
They say, at least to me, and it's both the Public Health Institute and Plomin in Great Britain say-
-that the effect of the home environment is practically zero.
On everything?
On education.
On smoking, on alcohol consumption.
I'll have to take a note of that.
For me it does not seem reasonable based on all the data I have gathered.
So believe that you have evidence for what you say? That home environment has an effect?
I have been involved with this for many years.
I would be very surprised...
I can't understand that... most people think that way.
You have a method to find out whether it's the genes or...
Well, we don't have gene data so we can't say...
We can't eliminate the possibility of genes, but.
I'm no geneticist, but from all I know from this field,-
-point to the genes interaction with the environment.
The way I experience it, the parents are very important.
He experiences it this way.
And I experience Pedersen doesn't quite has basis to say that children copy their parents.
When finding out why children of smokers more often become smokers,'
-isn't it strange not examining the results of genetic inheritance-
-when it could be important?
What about Hernes?
He felt the importance of biology was very overrated.
Could it be that Hernes has underestimated the influence of genetics?
Do you think that, with more equal opportunities,-
-differences in education will be split along genetic lines?
I think that that could likely be the case.
Because we will reduce the factors in other variations. So it could happen.
But at the same time I think that our brains are so flexible.
So it will be very depend on what kind of educational environment they are put into.
So you think that almost anyone can become a professor?
Anyone can become an academic?
I wouldn't wish for that.
But it's obvious that we have an enormous unused pool-
-of the talents in our population.
I can take one example:
Here's two rubber bands. One large and one small.
I can stretch the small one until it becomes as big as the large one.
The point is that this are genes.
But the length to which we can stretch the genes vary.
A former Minister of Education, Hernes is optimistic.
He says we all can be strecthed more than we know.
It sounds like a positive message, but is it?
Because even if the small band can be stretched very far,-
-the bigger band can be stretched a lot further with the same force.
And if you insists on stretching the smallest as far as the biggest,-
-it's not certainly that the result will be good.
Maybe the lesson from the new genetic research is:
That we have to acknowledge that we've all made a little different.
And that there therefore are limits to how much we can change people.
If you really want to shape your child, and that's the main goal of getting a child,-
-then buy yourself a dog instead.
It's about science.
Can I ask you a few questions?
I want to hear the opinion of the people.
Are you kidding me?
No.
What determines our intelligence?
How big a part does the environment play in our development?
The genetic inheritance from our parents...
We have to set limits...
IQ, Intelligence Quotient.
Equal opportunities in school.
Reform 97 is to be implemented.
That was an artificial smile.
How come different people have different personalities?
Are you awake, girls? Departure in 45 minutes.
Are you coming, dad?
I've always liked the sight of my two girls going to school.
And like every parent, I would like them to do well in school.
But whe are some kids doing better in school than others?
My name is Harald Eia. Did anyone know that?
You're dying with laughter.
Can I ask a rude question? Who's the best pupil in the class?
Is it you?
Did they point at you? Are you the best in this class?
Yes!
Does your parents have lots of education?
Yes, I would say that. One of them is an economist.
The other is a teacher, but she has studied for years in addition.
My mom is clever. I bet she did well in school.
But she didn't do well in maths. And my dad didn't do well in school.
So I haven't inherited the best genes for school work.
This I experience now.
Does this make you mad at them.
No.
Perhaps it's rude to ask people personal questions like that.
But, statistics show that the school performance of these youngsters-
- are closely linked to how their parents performed.
In the Government report "No-one was left behind", it's stated.
"Graduates from junior school with parents with higher education"-
-"get on average one grade better in every course"-
-"than students with parents that have a junior high school education."
It's called grade inheritance.
It's regarded as a major failure of the Norwegian school system.
The school should ""counteract social inequality".
Everyone should have the chance to do well, regardless of origin.
Who do we have a school where family background-
-plays such a part in a student's performance?
That's what we're going to find out.
One that can help me with this is former Minister of Education-
-Gudmund Hernes.
Official reports... not many read these.
Today, he's a professor in sociology.
And one of the architects behind school reforms to neutralize inequality.
Hernes was my old professor. I had maybe two lectures with him.
There you are! So nice.
It's like you live here when you open thee door yourself.
Hernes says that until WW2, Norway's class structures were rigid.
Where you ended up in society was determined by where you came from.
It was a direct relation.
If you grew up on a farm you ended up on a farm.
If your father was in the bureaucrasy you could end up there too.
You inherited the positions your parents had.
If there was no money, it didn't matter if you were a good student
For instance, my mother diid well in school.
She had to quit, because her paretns coulnd't afford school.
It was the same with my mom too. She was born in 1925.
Do you want coffee?
I want coffee.
You and dad where the same age.
And dad got the opportunity to take a higher education.
He did well in school but you did too.
No... I was like everyone else.
But you liked going to school?
Yes. I would say that.
But you didn't take higher education?
No. My brother was able to go to lower secondaty school.
(Liv Meldal)
But we couldn't afford it. School cost money.
If you had been able to take a loan, you would have continued in school?
Absolutely! I envied those in my class that could afford it.
This was at Spillum.
They rode their bikes in the morning.
I was with my grandmother and had to help her in the cowshed.
And I saw my friends on their bikes, on the way to school.
I was envious then.
Before the war, people with dissimilar family background-
-got dissimilar education.
But after the war, we saw that we had lots of unused human potential.
We understood that people had abilities,-
-but that for a lot of people these abilities were being repressed.
Therefore not only the working places had to change-
-but alse the school system.
A system was built that gave everyone the same opportunity to education.
You are an example of a good student from a fairly simple background.
And you used the new system to get ahead.
Yes. I received both a stipend and acceptance to a university.
And a student loan. And I had no problems continuing in my studies.
The good student, Hernes, received his professorship only 30 years old.
My dad graduated in chemistry.
And therefore became the first in the Eia family with a higher education.
But the new system didn't function quite as planned.
In 1976 Hernes publishes a report that shows-
-children from higher social segments still had the most education.
It was a paradox. A system was created to create equality.
Still, the differences we originally had-
-were reproduced in the new system.
Why is it that way
The 10th graders said it was because you inherit your parents' genes.
You don't think it's because the inequality is reproduced-
-because people inherit the genes that dictate school performance?
And that's why they do as well as their parents.
I think it's a component of biology that determines what we can become.
But I think the importance of this is strongly overvaluyed.
To find out more, I visis sociology professor Willy Pedersen.
He's an expert on youth and family relations.
Hi! Are you that tall?
Yes. But you are tall too.
Thanks, but how tall are you?
1,91 meter.
I think I'm probably sinking a bit.
Here's your home office.
This is where I think and write.
Do you have many kids?
Two.
Parents with higher education get children with high education
The children of parents with less education, take less too.
Where is this from? Why is it that way?
The simplest explanation is that they copy what's around them.
(Willy Pedersen - Sociologist)
Children take in all kinds of sources...
Both what they are told and if they are read to...
If you read "Peer Gynt" for your children, they will listen.
They notice what's said at the dinner table. Those "given" things.
We sociologists are concerned with those things that are not discussed.
Things that just are the way they are.
Pedersen says children that see parents read, copy them.
And then they do well in school too.
This fits with my upbringing. My dad read a lot.
He always consulted the encyclopedia.
Dad was a master at looking things up in the encyclopedia.
Do you think the did it too much?
When we had guests, and there was a subject that was being discussed,-
-your sister would say: "Now dad's going to get out the encyclopedia."
It was a bit much.
Yes. People wanted to discuss.
And not get the true answer.
It's strange. It was called "Conversational Encyclopedia."
But it put a stop to every conversation.
Yes.
Nothing more to talk about.
When we wondered about something dad looked in the encyclopedia.
I do the same. That type of culture explains some of the differences?
Obviously. It's not only the entrance into the system that matters.
But what you bring with you.
So even if the entrance is the same, the amount of baggage you the students bring to the school is unequal.
There is lots of talent that never go to the university-
-from social segments with lower education. No doubt.
To utilize people's talent one had to early counter-
-the differences created at home.
So in 1997, Hernes supported the new rule of schooling from the age of 6.
The first encounter with the school and the teacher.
Many of the 6-year-olds had looked forward to this day.
but not everyone wanted to go to school.
But despite the fact that dissimilar family background-
-get dissimilar education.
The home environment explains why children take after their parents.
A child copy her mother and father. Also bad habits.
So you never smoked?
Yes.
i started smoking when I was 17/18 that was common in my circles.
Everyone around my dad did.
Studies show that there is a 50 % higher risk for a child that grew up with parents who smoke-
-will also start to smoke.
It's a direct effect. An imitation effect.
So, given that everything else is equal it seems that-
-if the parents smoke, they influence the children to take the same chooses.
The children imitate the parents?
Yes, the smoking habits.
This is important knowledge for the policy makers.
Former Minister of Children Affairs.
One copies one's parents. Those are the strongest role models.
Parents are role models?
Ask young girls about it.
it's not Paris Hilton or Britney Spears. It's mom.
Parents are role models. They have great responsibility.
In a national campaign parents are reminded that:
"If alcohol is a central part of hygge, enjoyment and social life for parents,"-
-"there is a great risk for that the child will copy there standpoints and habits."
It will look like me, a total abstainer, drinks beer...
Hans Olav Tungesvik is a psychiatrist.
He has written the book: "Traces of your own Parents as keys to self insight"
He believes a great responsibility rests with the parents.
Parents are mirrors to their children.
This is why the little things in everyday life are important in determining-
-if it will become a good life later on.
Many of the psychological problems grown-ups have,-
-can they be understood as a product of the experiences and lessons learned-
-they had with their parents?
Obviously.
There are many examples of that.
Do you see children as pieces of clay?
And then they slowly harden?
Were good image. That's it.
It's formed gradually. Little by little.
It's that way, for better or worse.
Those that want their children to have a good life,-
-they have to be very conscious of this.
Because the children are influenced by the home environment, siblings have similar interests and skills.
But there are examples of siblings from the same home-
-who aren't very similar.
Hello! Can I talk to you?
What is your name? Alexander.
And you?
Oscar.
How old are you Oscar?
Nine.
And you are?
Seven.
Okay. Let's see yor front teeth.
Perfect front teeth! There are lots of advantages with teeth like that.
Are they similar or dissimilar as types?
Very dissimilar.
In what way?
Alexander is extrovert. Likes to talk. Oscar is more quiet.
Are you quiet?
Most of the time.
Siblings are different, in spite of growing up in the same home.
It could of cause be because they are treated unequal.
But perhaps they are treated unequal because they are unequal.
We have to go back to the unsolvable question:
How much is nature, and how much is nurture?
I remember one person at the university.
He asked that question.
What was the percentages again?
Was that question ridiculed?
Yes.
It shouldn't have been. Don't you think it's interesting?
Yes, but it's not set in percentage.
My guess is fifty-fifty.
I would say at most one third.
One third is genetic not higher?
How much do you think is nature and how much is nurture?
I think it might well be 80 % social life and environment.
80 % is parental influence, 20 % is the parents genes.
Yes, I should think so.
Tungesvik is guessing.
One of the reasons is that it's hard to give an exact answer,-
-is that it's hard to say what in a person that stems from genes,-
-and what is family influence and what is influenced by society.
What's her name?
Miriam Rebecca.
You have been sweating.
You were sweaty and warm.
Is she adopted?
Yes.
Do you think you can mould her personality?
Or do you think it's determined from the genes?
I think it's determined from the genes.
It's is precisely studies on adopted children that can answer the old conundrum.
Then we can see both the effect of genes and the home environment.
I discover that the foremost expert on adoption studies is Robert Plomin.
Who is a professor at King's College in London.
Plomin heads several adoption- and twin-studies.
And I ask him to tell me about the one that has gone on the longest.
Colorado Adoption Project started already in 1975.
For over 30 years Plomin has examined the adopted children,-
-the adoptive parents and the children's biological parents.
And then Plomin compared them with control families.
They were regular families where children grow up with their biological parents.
In the control families, he found that IQ levels of parents and child-
-were fairly similar. Not surprisingly.
But when looking at the IQ of adopted children and their biological parents,-
-he discovered something surprising.
The adopted children's IQ correlated with the IQ of their biological parents-
-even when the child did not grow up with them.
The effect of genes seems to be very strong.
Imagine that! The adoptive parents raise the adopted children as their own.
Read for them, helped them with homework.
But still Plomin found no effect on the IQ of the adopted children.
If the biological parents had low IQ,-
-the smart adoptive parents would not get smart children.
Several studies point to this.
It's the genes, not the environment at home that matters.
Not only how smart you become but also your core personality traits.
Whether you are introvert or extrovert, emphatic or asocial.
It's not the result of the home environment but of the genes.
Before I had children I knew how they should be raised.
After I had one, I certainly knew how to raise them.
But after I got the second one, I knew there are differences in all.
Hernes believed that genes counted for maximum 33 %.
Tungesvik said even less.
I think it might well be 80 % social life and environment.
So genes means a lot. But not everything.
Nurture also affects intelligence and personality traits.
But if the environment has got nothing to do with parental influence, what is it then?
I check out Plomin's tip, and read up on child psychologist Judith Rich Harris.
She has new, and at least for me, revolutionary ideas-
-on the relationship between parents and children, and what shapes us.
And I decide to go to New Jersey to talk to her.
Let's see, she lives in number 54.
Here it is!
I'm fortunate to interview her. Her health is failing-
-and she hardly accepts visitors.
The Americans have an extra door.
I've never understood the point of the extra door.
I don't dare to ask about it.
Harris disagrees with people like Pedersen, Huitfeldt and Tungesvik.
And everyone who says children copy their parents.
When twin- and adoption-studies show little effect of the parents-
-on how we turn out. Harris says it's not really that surprising.
Harris says children are more influenced by children of the same age than parents.
This is still only a theory, but things point to it being right.
Studies have shown that children experience being bullied by other children-
-as much worse than bad home environment.
And when a child learns to talk, they mimic other children, not their parents.
Did you know anyone with braces?
Yes, dad!
Why don't you talk with a northern Norwegian accent?
Good question.
But what about smoking habits?
There's a 50 % bigger change that the child of parents who smoke will become a smoker.
Is that because the child imitates the adults?
Yes, the smoking habits of the parents are imitated.
But if genes mean so much, and parental influence so little,-
-what then with national campaigns against parents drinking alcohol while the child sees it-
-because children copy their parents?
I visit Kristian Tambs, professor in psychology-
-and reaseacher at the National Institute of Health.
A professor, I can see that right away.
Welcome.
Thank you. Harald here.
I had to persuade him to be interviewed.
Because his research speaks against established truths in attitude campaigns.
"If alcohol is a central part of hygge and partying for the parents."
-"it's likely the children will copy these attitudes and habits."
Yes. It's daring to oppose this campaign.
Because there are plenty of reasons not to drink with children present.
We all know that. But...
If asked if there's basis in research-
-in that children copy their parents when it comes to drinking,-
-that's not so certain.
Because most studies that show correlation-
-between the drinking of the parents and the children,-
-show that it's at about the level you could expect-
-from genetic effect only.
So it's not because they copy their parents?
It's because they inherit their parent's genes.
Yes. I believe it's mostly that.
I wasn't the only one being taught this.
The thought of parents affection their children permeates our world.
Is this what you call nice?
Have you gone crazy?
You have leeched of me for 18 years!
And then you offer up a bit of jelly for dinner?
If you've got personal problems, you search for answers in your childhood.
Hello!
Leif Edward Ottensen Kennair is an associate professor of psychology in Trondheim.
He says psychologists have prospered by saying our problems-
-stem from our childhood.
It's one of the myths. That psychology must did and dig-
-in childhood memories. Like a psychological Sherlock Holmes.
Or even worse, an Indiano Jones. Search for causes for the sufferings.
But isn't it so that a dreadful experience from childhood-
-influence your personality the rest of your life?
Not the personality. It doesn't necessarily lead to mental suffering.
But it can lead to bad memories.
Tungesvik says we're born as soft clay. And then we harden.
But the first imprints on the clay lasts forever.
It's a common thing to say. But it doesn't make it true just because many say that.
We haven't been able to establish that the home environment-
-influences the personality at the grown-up stage.
Could it really be true that the home environment doesn't have an effect?
Surely adults can destroy a child?
If the personality and development of my girls-
-is not affected must by me, does it mean that I can, as a dad, relax?
Plomin believes we have to look at nature and nurture in a new light.
That your genes affect your choice in what environment you choose to live in.
This correlates with Helle's talent for gymnastics.
I have never encouraged her to take up gymnastics.
Nonetheless she's still running around form morning to night .
Therefore I bought her a gymnastics mat. That's all I've done.
But we must go back to the starting point: Abilities in schoolwork.
Hernes and Pedersen believed in the home environment.
The pupils focused on genes.
And Plomin agrees with the 10th graders.
So how much can genes mean for the educational results in Norway today?
Kristian Tambs can answer this.
He has studies thousand of twins born before and after the war.
People born before the war-
-were dependent on the family they were from-
-where they ended up in terms of education.
Now genes account for about 60 %.
While the family environment means nearly nothing - 10 %.
For my mother it was her family background-
-that determined her level of education.
But today it's not the difference in family background-
-that leads to difference in education, but the different genes.
The newspapers write that children inherit their paretns' schiool grades.
"Inheritance of grades is a defeat for the Norwegian school system".
It's not necessarily right?
I don't think it is correct.
I think that's the way it has to be-
-in a society with a relatively big equality when it comes to-
-who can acquire an education.
But this opposes everything I've learned!
Yes. But you're a sociologist.
I demand a refund...
Of wasted educational time!
He's a professor, and has headed public reports.
It's sociologists like Hernes and Pedersen that has taught me and Norway that-
-that parents affect children when it comes to smoking, drinking and school.
But on what basis? How can they know this is primarily imitation?
Have the actually researched the importance of genes?
Pedersen doesn't want to see videos with what other researchers have said.
He only wants to answer questions about his own research.
Last time you said it was an imitation effect.
How can you know what is imitation and what is effect of the genes?
We can't say for sure...
In social science we try to introduce explanations.
Where we try to understand the world around us.
But it's hard to say why children are similar to their parents.
If it is because of genes or home environment.
I have researched this thoroughly for 20 years.
Huge models, where we have entered data on all these things.
The importance of friends, of school.
But the factor of the parents is always very strong.
They say, at least to me, and it's both the Public Health Institute and Plomin in Great Britain say-
-that the effect of the home environment is practically zero.
On everything?
On education.
On smoking, on alcohol consumption.
I'll have to take a note of that.
For me it does not seem reasonable based on all the data I have gathered.
So believe that you have evidence for what you say? That home environment has an effect?
I have been involved with this for many years.
I would be very surprised...
I can't understand that... most people think that way.
You have a method to find out whether it's the genes or...
Well, we don't have gene data so we can't say...
We can't eliminate the possibility of genes, but.
I'm no geneticist, but from all I know from this field,-
-point to the genes interaction with the environment.
The way I experience it, the parents are very important.
He experiences it this way.
And I experience Pedersen doesn't quite has basis to say that children copy their parents.
When finding out why children of smokers more often become smokers,'
-isn't it strange not examining the results of genetic inheritance-
-when it could be important?
What about Hernes?
He felt the importance of biology was very overrated.
Could it be that Hernes has underestimated the influence of genetics?
Do you think that, with more equal opportunities,-
-differences in education will be split along genetic lines?
I think that that could likely be the case.
Because we will reduce the factors in other variations. So it could happen.
But at the same time I think that our brains are so flexible.
So it will be very depend on what kind of educational environment they are put into.
So you think that almost anyone can become a professor?
Anyone can become an academic?
I wouldn't wish for that.
But it's obvious that we have an enormous unused pool-
-of the talents in our population.
I can take one example:
Here's two rubber bands. One large and one small.
I can stretch the small one until it becomes as big as the large one.
The point is that this are genes.
But the length to which we can stretch the genes vary.
A former Minister of Education, Hernes is optimistic.
He says we all can be strecthed more than we know.
It sounds like a positive message, but is it?
Because even if the small band can be stretched very far,-
-the bigger band can be stretched a lot further with the same force.
And if you insists on stretching the smallest as far as the biggest,-
-it's not certainly that the result will be good.
Maybe the lesson from the new genetic research is:
That we have to acknowledge that we've all made a little different.
And that there therefore are limits to how much we can change people.
If you really want to shape your child, and that's the main goal of getting a child,-
-then buy yourself a dog instead.